Americans should have never been allowed in the first place or maybe only 5 max. But that's history and I doubt it will ever go back to how it was decades ago. This is such a complicated issue now and people are on different sides of the issue, it's basically a no-win situation. The teams find it hard to find quality Canadians when injuries happen and this is a huge consideration and needs to be explored. Once you have Americans from the US factory, the standards are higher for everyone and while this is great, it does create problems as well.
ha ha ha ha
Is there a link? I don't see anything on the TSN site, the CFL site or the Globe and Mail today.
The players are being screwed financially as it is now. The Riders claim they had just under 23 million in gross revenue in 2008, and they are not the most profitable team; that honour suposedly goes to the Esks and Als. God only knoiws what the other teams make, but BC and Calgary at least must be doing very well. The salary cap was supposed to be 56% of gross revenues. $4.2 million is nowhere near 56% of $23 million; using the Sask figure for the purpose of argument, the cap should be in the neighbourhood of $12.6 - $12.8 million. So I really don't buy the league's position on this.
In regards to the import/non-import issue, the league increased the import ratio by 3 players in 1996 to absorb the players from the failed American teams. This was supposed to be a temporary measure, and the ratio was to return to its previous level wthin 4 years, but this was not done. The league also increased the number of designated imports from one to three in the last ten years. The DI rule was originally re-introduced to allow teams to carry a special teams import, usually a kick returner, and it was hoped that it would encourage more teams to get a Gizmo Williams type. It's also much easier and cheaper to find good US players (700+ football colleges) than it is good Cdn players (27 football colleges). The league did just fine in the 60s, 70s and early 80s with a lower import ratio, so I don't buy the league's argument here either.
As for the six hour day, yeah, okay - as long the cap is increased also. Management can make a lot more legitimate demands on players if they're being paid $100,000+ instead of $41,000.
I live in the US and have been a CFL fan since the famous Grey Cup game in the fog in the 60's. Have always felt that the construct of the game is much superior to that of the NFL (aka the "No Fun League"). Here in the US, we are pretty much fed up with labor disputes in professional sports. Somehow, I always thought that the CFL and its players--because its existence has, at some times, been financially precarious--was above all that. So, I was very unhappy to learn of the prospect of a lockout. Particularly this year-when MSG + has carried Friday Night Football (sometimes both games) for the whole season.
So--come on guys--work it out. Don't mess up this game that so many of us enjoy!
IF the CFL becomes a league of left-over Americans, then why would I bother watching that? I'd just go watch NFL fulltime.
I think the CFL's future lies in making a real committment to developing Canadian talent and differentiating our game from NFL.
CANADIAN FOOTBALL should be played fast and furious - the way that a nation of hockey fans would expect any game to be played! Keep the action flowing. Keep and increase the Canadian player content!
…interesting, you say ‘funny’, yet include rolling eyes, I would assume as a form of sarcasm, meaning it’s not funny…elementary, but effective I suppose…my comment wasn’t intended to be funny though, as in haha funny or wouldn’t-it-be-funny-if-Lumsden-broke-his-leg (a form of ‘funny’ you are familiar with), it’s satirical actually:
In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.
…i don’t agree with modifying anything with the current system, to me it would make as much sense as demanding that three of your players have to come from South Africa or the southern half of Australia, Argentina, Chile…
The link was included in the OP but here it is again.http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=297343
Yeah, sorry I see that now. Read theoriginal post too quickly. Thanks.
Does anyone know how much, if any the CFL invests in the CIS? My guess is it would be apallinging little, which strikes me as ironic for a league that has Canadian players at its core.
I've long thought the CFL should be enhancing its partnership with the CIS to ensure a steady flow of capable Canadians coming into the league. Particularly lately, with all this talk of not having enough Canadians.
Rider profit on $23M of revenue was under $2M last year. They are a community-owned franchise so their audited books are released to the public. They take in a lot, but that does not translate to massive profits.
ROFLMAO.... 23 million in revenues and 1.3 million profit. It would take me 10 minutes in front of their software to find where the money is hidden.
Go look at debits in the last 60 days of the fiscal year and I bet there is money parked everywhere from Travel agents, suppliers, car leasing companies, not to mention the "contingency" fund and Loans to numbered companies "in trust"
Bad timing! Only 4 weekens/Sundays of CFL football, before the end of the 2009 season and the players are talking about lockout. I blame Stu Laird and his Executive. They want the sympathy of the fans,but they will create division amongst fans and players; they don't have my sympathy. There are 7 months before 2010 training camps begin; I will start to worry in May 2010, if there are no agreements. Here are my thoughts/suggestions/hope.
A-Daily hours of training,film review,etc. should be increased from actual daily hours of 4 1/2 to 5 in 2010 and to 5 1/2 in 2011.
B-Non-import starters-actually 7- should be reduced, but not the total of non-imports. The non-import starters should be reduced to 6 in 2010 and to 5 if/when another team is added to the actual 8.
C-Players dressed. Actually 42,i.e. minimum of 20 non-imports,maximum of 19 imports and maximum of 3 QBs. Should be 44, starting in 2010,i.e.minimum of 21 non-imports,maximum of 20 imports and minimum of 3 QBs. Teams should no longer be allowed to dress only 2 QB as the Argos did,for most of the 2009 season.
D- Salary cap. Actually $4.2 millions. To $4.4 in 2010,to $4.6 in 2011 and to $4.8 in 2012.
E- Minimum salary for rookies. To $42,000 in 2010 and $43,500 in 2012.
F-Playoffs moniee to players to be increased by as much as 25% in the next 3 years.
I will/may elaborate more in the off-season; fans should be aware that the CFL cannot "face"/survive a long a lockout. There is a maximum how much the Owners and the fans will pay in extra to satisfy a few players.
Hoping for the best to the fans,players and owners.
The salary increases you suggest are already built in to a percentage of the revenues and they BOG didn't even honor that this year claiming to be "prudent" That was horse manure. I dont blame the CFLPA to finaly grow a pair.It is about time.
If the CFLPA leaked this it is obviously because they've been threatened with a lockout by someone on the other side of the table and as you say this league is not wealthy enough to survive a lockout so they obviously plan to use replacement players if they go that route.
I'm a business owner, the futhest you could find from a Union guy but I absolutely understand where the CFLPA is coming from. I am just surprisded it took this long.
As far as the ratio. There are enough token Canadians on special teams as it is, thank you.
Yes creative accounting at its best.
If the Riders do not pocket half of this as profit, well than an investigation is needed.
Great post !
Very Informative !
Totally fair !
I'm with you 100 percent !
I kinda agree. I don't see the CFL as a development league so therefore, I think the best players regardless of their nationality should play.
I don't think there'll be a lockout. The CFL would be dumb to not play next year. There is no good outcome of lockouts, none.
The idea to reduce starting non-imports is short-sighted. The popularity of football in high-school and junior ranks is on the upswing. Seeing Canadian kids playing keeps Canadian kids interested in playing and watching the sport. Reducing starting Canadians to a pittance alienates your future audience.
It is all about money - keeping quality Canadian starters is expensive - getting reject, no-name Americans is cheap. The CFL continues to avoid making the game about individual players so that "stars" aren't created that can demand big salaries, particularly Canadian stars. Bean-counter thinking that will end up costing the CFL and its owners big because they don't understand what actually attracts fans.
I have a fairly ignorant perspective, but I'll opine anyway
There will be no lockout. That would server no good purpose, and is really just a negotiating tactic if it's even been used (which I doubt).
Profit is not a dirty word. Owners in the CFL MUST be able to make as much money as possible, because profits equal stability and incentive. It's also payback for lean years.
That said, the players need as much incentive as they can possibly get. Most of these guys put their careers and physical health on the line every time they step on a field, whether in a game or in practice. Pay them as much as possible while still allowing for significant profits for the owners. Negotiations must be in good faith with that principle in mind. There should be no "us and them" mentality in the CFL. The league is only as strong as its weakest link. Pay the players better ($41K is a pretty sad figure for a minimum), but don't rob the owners of needed profits either.
As for the import quota, I'm sure few fans want to see fewer Canadians, but most probably recognize that there may not always be enough pro-quality players available for every team. Some accommodation should be made when the scouting service determines that a certain threshold of "ready" players has not been reached in a given year. This could be in the form of an adjustable quota, that allows for more imports in some years, and less in others. If it's a problem, then there needs to be a creative solution.
Just a thought anyway.
On a side note (apologies for being off-topic, but this doesn't require a separate thread), it has occurred to me, after hearing DeAndra' Cobb's name pronounced "dee-and-ray", that the apostrophe in his name is really a misspelling, because most anglophones (and most Windows users incidentally) don't know how to produce a proper "´" (acute accent) on their keyboard. So the correct spelling of his name to produce the correct pronunciation should be "DeAndrá" and not "DeAndra'", which is just confusing and produces the incorrect pronunciation in English "DeAnd-raw".
I'm also pleased that Duane Forde actually pronounces Marcel Bellefeuille's name correctly, though a little perplexed that he seems to be the only one to do so.
The league and the players assosiation will reach some kind of deal before next season, cuz the league knows that if their is a lockout, that would be the end of the CFL as we know it.